Dmitry Peskov, the press attaché for Vladimir Putin, noted on behalf of the Russian president that Moscow has been taking measures to prevent the Ukrainian crisis from worsening, but Kiev's recent acts ruined any last hopes for the Geneva deal.

The two contending sides in Ukraine have not reached a point to balance out each other's pursuit of interest, which would lead to a final compromise. In the eve of Ukraine's general election, when the situation is becoming volatile, any attempt to bring back the country to stable development does seem fragile. Moscow now deems all four parties in the Geneva talks responsible. Yet Putin's intentions are only dampened by sanctions both implemented and threatened by Washington.

Not all parties accepted Moscow's initiative to include Crimea in the Russian Federation. Both the United States and the EU are doubtful as to whether Russia would in the end implement the deal of dissuading pro-Russian forces from separating the country. Ukraine itself remains far from trusting the mediation offered by all major powers.

In fact, the four-party deal is more like a platform that allows all members involved to articulate their own stances, with a common goal to prevent violence.

The latest developments in the unrest have made it different from the previous stages. First, the confrontation was unprecedentedly intense. Clashes between government soldiers and pro-Russian forces broke out in Odessa, Sloviansk and Luhansk. In terms of scale, the confrontations were more on the verge of a civil war than on that of clashes.

The baseline of any political confrontation is that no one should ruin the political room for coexistence. Nonetheless, as angry protesters took to the streets, and subsequently were greeted with crackdowns, the increasing violence is gradually nibbling away at all game rules.

In the current Ukrainian political crisis, both sides in the clash do not really have a clear objective to reach, a new feature in the current stage which makes any compromise even more difficult to attain. In stark contrast, deciding the future for Yanukovych and Crimea were both far more practical pursuits.

None of the four parties in the Geneva Talks made it clear what they wished to obtain from, or what they cannot afford to lose in, the current unrest. An ambiguous strategy will result in incalculable risks. Russia seems to lack strategic appraisal on Crimea issues, which made annexing Crimea more of a forced response. Russian elites do not seem to understand what they want from the pro-Russian unrest at their doorstep.

At the Geneva Talks, Moscow understood that it was faced with a 1:3 disadvantage, so that it did not expect any constructive deal to take shape. The reason why Russia joined the talks was both meant to prevent the crisis from escalating and to influence how Ukraine's imminent general election -- scheduled for late May -- will change the situation. Simply put, Russia had in fact planned such moves for its next step, the implications of which Moscow does not quite recognize.

Many scholars in politics have noted the best opportunity to solve Ukraine's unrest has at this point slipped away. The only reason both the United States and Russia gathered Yanukovych and the people who opposed him merely intended to ease the tension regarding whether or not the Ukrainian government should be toppled.

The Western powers gave their silent consent to the opposition's destruction of the Geneva Talks deal, which made other political forces in Ukraine, along with Russia, no longer hold any trust in a dialogue-based solution with the Western countries.

Russia still reiterates how all parties should honor the deal reached at the Geneva Talks. Yet Moscow's urge was not meant to re-establish Yanukovych's political role -- since everyone knows the ex-president had no chance to step up again. Russia's real intention is to deny the legitimacy of Ukraine's interim government.

Violence is never the best way to solve a political crisis. Any attempt to quash the crisis with oppression, even if potentially possible, will be repaid in revenge years later. China and Russia have been correct in advocating a peaceful solution to the current crisis in Ukraine, lest the tensions would escalate.

Since the Geneva Talks can now no longer function, Russia is mulling a new arrangement. Moscow at this instant wants the parties involved in direct confrontation, the coalition of eastern states and Kiev, to sit down for talks.

The Russians also know that the United States and Europe will eventually separate in their stances regarding the unrest in Ukraine, though at present, they remain in agreement. Soon enough, a new dialogue mechanism will emerge, one which may even modify the Geneva Talks.

The author is a student working on his doctorate at the Russia Study Centre of East China Normal University.

This article was translated by Chen Boyuan. Its original unabridged versionwas published in Chinese.

Opinion articles reflect the views of their authors, not necessarily those of China.org.cn.